USCA1 Opinion
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 96-2196
RICHARD WAYNE GARGANTA,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
UNION CENTRAL LIFE,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
[Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge] __________________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________
____________________
Richard Wayne Garganta on brief pro se. ______________________
David P. Whitman and Hanson, Curran, Parks & Whitman on brief for ________________ _______________________________
appellee.
____________________
July 14, 1997
____________________
Per Curiam. Plaintiff-appellant brought this ___________
diversity action against his private insurer alleging breach
of contract in the denial of a claim for disability insurance
benefits. The insurer maintained that plaintiff was not
"totally disabled" within the meaning of the policy. On the
morning of the trial, the district court granted a defense
motion in limine to exclude from evidence a Social Security __ ______
Administration record and finding that for a period of time
plaintiff was under a "disability" as defined in the Social
Security Act. A motion by plaintiff for a two-week
continuance to seek additional medical testimony was denied.
Although plaintiff's counsel reported a readiness to proceed
to trial with other medical and lay witnesses, plaintiff then
discharged his counsel and refused to put his case to the
jury. Final judgment was entered for the insurer.
Having reviewed the abbreviated record and briefs
with care, we see no abuse of the district court's
considerable discretion to weigh the probative value of the
social security evidence and determine its admissibility in
light of competing factors. See Fed. R. Evid. 403. Given ___
the circumstances, carefully weighed and articulated by the
court, there also was no abuse in the denial of a
continuance.
As to each of plaintiff's multiple assignments of
error in the pretrial proceedings, we apprehend no
-2-
prejudicial effect on the outcome of the case, and see no
reason to suppose that he was entitled to summary judgment as
a matter of law.
Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___
-3-